How to . . . ?

Complicated Passage, Clear Preaching

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

I’m scheduled to preach on of those tricky ones.  You know, one of the crux interpretum of the New Testament.  There’s the end of 1st Timothy 2, the end of 1st Peter 3, the end of James, the end of 1st John, Hebrews 6, etc.  A passage that begs every exegetical skill you possess, or if you’re rushing, a passage that just checking two or three commentaries doesn’t resolve.

It is important not to avoid the complexity as we preach.  If your listeners can see the verses, but are confused by them.  Just avoiding them in your sermon is not the solution (tempting as it may be!)  You have to address them if you’re preaching through the book, or if they’re in your preaching passage.

It is helpful to acknowledge the difficulty. Just giving a simplistic explanation may satisfy a few, but many will be left wondering what the passage really means (and they will be left with less respect for your ability to handle and explain the Word to them!)  If it is hard to interpret, don’t pretend otherwise.  Nobody should expect you to find everything super simple.

It is important not to let the complexity overwhelm the main idea. Often the main idea of a passage is still clear, even with the complicated element present.  Be sure that your main idea is clear so that the sermon is a preaching of the text with applied relevance, rather than a pulpit lecture in theological method (a lived out excursus in the pulpit section of daily life).

Pray for me as I preach one of these tricky passages.  Pray not that I’ll stun people with my brilliance, but that I’ll handle the Word well and be sure to preach the Word, not merely lecture or present an exegetical curio for their passing interest.  Let’s pray for each other to always preach the Word with accuracy and applied relevance.

First-Person Dangers – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

One more post in this series.  Again, I affirm first-person preaching as a powerful tool in the preacher’s repertoire, but I don’t affirm poor first-person preaching!  Hence this list of dangers to be aware of when venturing into this realm of preaching.

Danger 6 – Excessive humor or frivolity.  First-person preaching provides many more opportunities than regular preaching for humorous and even frivolous comments.  Sometimes humor is helpful.  Sometimes humor can help to cover a potentially distracting moment.  Sometimes it can provide relief from tension.  Sometimes it helps, but only if it is sometimes.  I don’t see any court jesters in the Bible, so there’s no need to preach like one.  First-person preaching inherently carries the risk of being seen as more entertainment than preaching.  Don’t exacerbate that through excessive humor or frivolity.

Danger 7 – Inadequate or strained relevance. This form has inherent strengths in terms of being engaging and disarming.  It also has the inherent weakness of struggling to be relevant.  If the audience are invited to listen “back then,” applications can only be timelessly conceptual, i.e. vague.  If the character has traveled through time then they have to portray a convincing understanding of contemporary culture and issues if they are to make any attempt at relevance.  While it is certainly possible to preach the entire sermon in character, it is also possible to step out of character for specific and concrete application.  Whenever you preach in first-person, pay careful attention to the need for relevant application.

Danger 8 – Not being appropriate to your audience.  This covers a lot of what has been stated already.  But I would go further.  Analyze the congregation to decide how much first-person preaching they will truly value.  Some congregations love it and beg for more. Others can gain a lot from it once in a while.  Some are so rigid they cannot hear the message because the form is a potentially offensive distraction.  As always in good preaching, we have to know not only the text, but also the listeners.

Please preach first-person when it is the best strategy available, but please always do it with as much excellence as you can muster!

First-Person Dangers – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

In part 1 we saw three potential dangers in first-person preaching. Today I share some more. I share them not to warn you away from first-person preaching, but to encourage excellent first-person preaching!

Danger 4 – Distractingly amateurish dramatics. Even people who enjoy the amateur dramatic scene do not appreciate amateurish dramatics. Unless it’s someone you love, you probably wouldn’t want to spend the time cringing at a poor dramatic production. How much less poor dramatic preaching? This means that if costume is used, it should reflect the same quality as the sermon (leave the curtains and towels to children’s nativity plays, then maybe eliminate them there too!) It means striving for real consistency in content (Would the character know that? Is the speaker’s personal culture shaping content too much?)

Danger 5 – Losing sight of natural delivery. This may seem strange, since first-person by definition is about preaching as someone other than yourself. But this one actually follows from the previous danger. The goal in delivery is to be both effective and natural. (Isn’t it true that the best actors seem to be natural?) The natural element here is often lost due to dramatic excess. Sometimes the problem is “too much.” For instance, thirty minutes of excessive shouting and gesturing simply because the biblical character is seen as somewhat feisty is probably too much! Even feisty, strong-willed people don’t shout and gesture incessantly! While larger audiences require larger gestures, the goal is to communicate naturally!

Tomorrow I’ll finish the list, although feel free to add more!

First-Person Dangers

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

When you have an idea and a purpose for your sermon, you then choose the strategy that will best allow the idea to hit home.  Once you realize the potential in first-person sermons, this form will regularly suggest itself.  First-person preaching done well can be immensely powerful and profoundly effective.  But there are also a few dangers.  I’ll gently share a few, perhaps you can suggest others.  This is not to dissuade preaching in the first-person, but to encourage careful planning so that it is maximally effective.

Danger 1 – Don’t leaning on the form to do the work. Just because first person preaching has an inherent interest factor, you cannot rely on that to carry you through.  The form is a strategy chosen to serve the main idea, not a master that defines your content.  It is easy to pour energy into the “first-person” part of the sermon and fail to put the effort into the “sermon” part of the first-person.  The form may help, or it may utterly hinder your task of preaching the Word!

Danger 2 – Preaching event rather than text. It is enlightening to bring good first-person perspective to a Bible story or message, but remember that it is the text that was inspired, not the event itself. Don’t just bounce off the text to preach an event, but rather study the text and be sure to preach its message. 

Danger 3 – Not doing the extra work necessary. There are no two-ways about it, first-person preaching is extra work.  You have to do all the same work as any other sermon in terms of studying the text and the audience, formulating main idea and so on.  Plus you have to study extra historical, geographical, social, and cultural background.  Furthermore you are adding a dramatic element that takes extra work (just as a powerpoint is extra work and can easily suck away preparation time if you don’t recognize that!)

In part 2 I’ll add some more dangers to be aware of, but feel free to add any you like by commenting at any time.

Ideas that Stick – Part 3

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So far we’ve seen the principles of simplicity, unexpectedness and concreteness.  Here are the last three principles from Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath.

Principle 4 – Credibility. An idea must carry it’s own credentials, thereby having internal credibility.  The Heath’s suggest this comes from concreteness, as opposed to vague, statistical or abstract statement.  However, influencing an audience with an idea involves the support materials chosen as well as the statement of the idea itself.  Using real people in support material (eg stories of real people) adds credibility to an idea (more so than quotes from experts or celebrities, although those have a place).

Principle 5 – Emotional. The best way to make people care about an idea is to help them feel something.  Again, concreteness matters, for we are wired to feel things for people, not for abstractions.  Excess may paralyze (for instance, the overwhelming need of the masses), but an individual will stir the heart.

Principle 6 – Stories.  Stories are like flight simulators for the brain, according to the book.  As preachers we may be preaching a story anyway, but even if not, it might be worth considering how to use the power of story to simulate action in response to the idea.

The summary of the book is certainly worth pondering for preachers wrestling with ideas.  According to the Heaths, for an idea to stick it has to be useful and lasting.  A “sticky” idea makes the audience pay attention, understand, remember, agree/believe, care, and be able to act on it.  This list translates into unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, story-related ideas communicated with succinct clarity that has the simplicity and profundity of a proverb.

They were talking business.  But ideas are ideas, and if we handle the Bible well, then the ideas we are handling and presenting should be worth more effort than any name brand!

Ideas that Stick – Part 2

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

So a “sticky” idea is simple, that is both stripped to its core essence and yet profound.  In Made to Stick, Chip and Dan Heath share further principles that can bridge the gap from the business world to homiletics.  How can we craft main ideas that will stick?

Principle 2 – Unexpectedness.  Surprise increases alertness and focus, it grabs attention.  Consequently, when an idea can incorporate an element of unpredictability, it can generate both interest and curiosity.  This is not to suggest that an idea needs a gimmicky element.  The profound nature of a proverb resists the tacky nature of a gimmick.

Principle 3 – Concreteness. The authors again draw on the concept of a proverb (in their case, they are using proverbs such as “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” rather than Solomonic statements).  Concreteness suggests that profound truth be communicated in terms of human actions, sensory information, concrete language.  In our circles we might refer to communicating as low on the ladder of abstraction as possible.  After all, life is not abstract, so relevant truth need not be presented only in the abstract.  Some might take this to mean putting the cookies on the lower shelf, but that may miss the point and merely dumb down an idea.  It’s more about presenting an idea concretely – cookies and shelves, rather than taking a feast of biblical truth and turning it into a quick sugary snack.

In part 3 we will finish the list.

Ideas that Stick

/ Peter Mead / 1 Comment

In our approach to preaching (sometimes labeled the Big Idea approach), the main idea of the sermon is critical.  The idea is the core essence of a sermon that acts as boss over every other detail.  The main idea is like an arrow that is fired toward the target, and you want it to stick.  Consequently, anything I find about shaping a good idea is interesting to me.

Consider, for instance, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, by Chip and Dan Heath.  It’s not about preaching.  It’s about business.  One of the authors is a prof of organizational behavior and the other is a business consultant.  The focus is on business ideas, but they make some good points for us as preachers too.  After all, wouldn’t we love for the ideas we work so hard to craft as we study the Bible to be preaching ideas that “catch on” because they are memorable and clear?

In the next few posts I’ll share and apply the main principles from Made to Stick.

Principle 1 – Be Simple. The main idea in a sermon does not need to be dumbed down, but it does need to be stripped to the core of the idea, its critical essence.  The Heath’s do not simply teach that shorter is better.  A sound-bite is not the ideal.  According to the Heath’s, what is the ideal?  A proverb.  That which is both simple and profound.  We should be looking for the same.  Our initial attempts at stating the idea of a passage are usually both inaccurate and excessively long.  We must work to make the idea accurate and simplify it in order to get at the core essence.  Perhaps we would do well to aim for proverbial-like main ideas.  What do you think?

I’ll share more principles in part 2.

Factors In Selecting Sermon Form – Part 1

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

Last week I posted on the subject of sermon form. Now I’d like to expand on the factors that go into selecting a sermon form. Some people are committed to one sermon form. They think that true expository preaching is always done their way. It’s as if the sermon shape came down from the mount along with the two stone tablets and a blueprint for a uniquely special tent. But on this site we hold to the notion that expository preaching is not a form of preaching, but a philosophy of preaching. So, since there is great freedom, why do we choose the sermon form we choose? I see three main factors to take into account, today let’s consider the first:

Factor 1 – The form of the text. Every biblical text has a shape. It may be inductive or deductive. It may be a narrative, or a narrative introduced with a narrator’s statement of the idea or purpose. It may be chiastic. Text’s come in a certain type and a certain shape. For me, this is the starting point.

Not only does the text say something, but it says it in a certain way, and in doing so it does something. We would be wise to consider how our sermon can do what the text was written to do (not in every case, but often). And one way to make the sermon do what the text was written to do is to shape the sermon according to the shape of the text.

This is my default. My starting point is the shape of the text. I start with the shape of the text and then choose to change the shape of the sermon if there is good reason to do so. Why might there be good reason? In part 2, tomorrow, we’ll see!

A Ninth Stage?

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

I like the eight-stage approach to sermon preparation we use on this site.  It makes sense.  It works.  Sometimes I’m tempted to add a stage, but I think I’ll stick with eight.  Yet if I were to add a stage, what would it be?

It could be something to do with the invitation to preach that comes before the eight-stages.  Perhaps I’ll develop that thought in the days ahead.  I suppose you could make a case for adding delivery as a stage.  After all, delivery of the sermon is critical.  But then again, if these are the stages of preparation, then really it would need to be something about preparing to deliver, rather than the actual delivery.  Perhaps I’ll develop that thought too.

At this point in time, if I were to add a stage, it would come between stages 4 and 5.  After grasping the idea of the passage, before attempting to develop a message, it’s time for audience analysis.  This is critical.  The very definition of expository preaching I teach incorporates the notion of relevance to specific listeners.  How is relevance possible without consideration of the audience?  It may be the first time you preach to them, or the thousandth, but it is worth considering them and the timing of the sermon to them during each preparation.

I haven’t added it as a stage.  I still use and teach eight stages.  But I have added it as a category.  So if you click on Audience Analysis on the menu to the right, you will find previous posts on this important issue.

Don’t Say Too Much

/ Peter Mead / Leave a comment

My post last Sunday concerned preaching like it is your first message and your last.  I meant something specific under both of these points, and was not referring to the negative elements of each.  In reality your last sermon might be foggy with deteriorated thinking faculties, bitter with built up hurts, disconnected through losing touch, etc.  Your first sermon might have been messy through lack of training, stumbling through excessive nerves, etc.  But one of the comments on last Sunday’s post makes a very worthy point.

Most of us, in our first sermon, tried to say too much.  We tried to cram in all we knew on that subject.  We tried to miss nothing, preached dense and probably missed everyone listening.  Keep that in mind today.  Don’t try and say so much that you end up effectively saying nothing.  Don’t feel the need to prove how many hours of exegetical work you put in, or what exegetical bunny trails you pursued to no avail.  Say one thing, and say it well.  Say it clear.  Say it more than once.  But don’t say too much!